Some of the world's most authoritarian regimes introduced a new proposal at the World Conference on International Telecommunications on Friday that could dramatically extend the jurisdiction of the International Telecommunication Union over the Internet.

In a Friday night email to Ars Technica, a spokeswoman for the American delegation portrayed the introduction of the new proposal by the United Arab Emirites partway through a key Friday negotiating session as a surprise—and an unwelcome one at that. Negotiators were irritated that they had not been furnished with copies of the proposal before it was formally introduced to the conference.

A copy of the proposal was released by the website WCITLeaks on Saturday morning. It is labeled as a proposal made by Russia, the UAE, China, Saudi Arabia, Algeria, Sudan, and Egypt (though at least one Twitter user denies that Egypt supports the document).

The ITU regulations were last revised in 1988, so this will be the first time ITU rules formally apply to the Internet. The United States has been pushing to limit ITU regulations to large telecommunications incumbents like AT&T and British Telecom. In contrast, the new UAE proposal would bring a broad range of entities, including website operators like Google and Facebook, under the jurisdiction of ITU regulations.

The new proposal specifies that "member states have the right to manage all naming, numbering, addressing and identification resources used for international telecommunications/ICT services within their territories." This seems to be a challenge to the authority of ICANN and IANA, the quasi-private organizations that currently oversee the allocation of domain names and IP addresses.

The proposal would also add a new section on security issues. It specifies that the world's governments should "undertake appropriate measures" to protect the "physical and operational security of networks; denial of service attacks; countering unsolicited electronic communication (e.g Spam); and protection of information and personal data (e.g. phishing)."

The WCIT conference continues until December 14, so member countries still have several days to negotiate. During that time, the United States hopes to persuade the other nations to agree to a narrower set of rules that excludes key Internet functions from the ITU's jurisdiction.

It's important to remember that it was the ITU Member States who requested this conference - the ITU Secretariat functions only as the conference support team, helping with translation, interpretation and document management and distribution, to enable the delegates to do their work. Member States have expressed their belief that the ITRs they are currently using - which date from 1988 - are very out of date. They asked us to organize WCIT-12 so they could revise them, and they are the ones in there negotiating, not ITU.

Timothy B. Lee
Timothy covers tech policy for Ars, with a particular focus on patent and copyright law, privacy, free speech, and open government. His writing has appeared in Slate, Reason, Wired, and the New York Times. Emailtimothy.lee@arstechnica.com//Twitter@binarybits

Given a shitfest of advocates like that, I think we're fine with ICANN for another couple of centuries.

Yes ! We do not want to see the ITU/UN in charge of the Internet.Could of seen this News Story coming as it was inevitable that we would see China, Russia, Islamic Nations, ETC all try to lock down that pesky little Net.

Authoritative regimes that harass people in their own countries, or a regime that invades other countries without cause. Hmmm I'll go with the former one thanks. Besides between India, Japan, China, there's enough backbone to keep things going indefinitely without any US corporate involvement.

Harass? Harass?! More like maim, murder, intimidate... Well, as long as it's happening to someone else, I guess you'd be fine with that. Except when your own government turns against you....

Authoritative regimes that harass people in their own countries, or a regime that invades other countries without cause. Hmmm I'll go with the former one thanks. Besides between India, Japan, China, there's enough backbone to keep things going indefinitely without any US corporate involvement.

Harass? Harass?! More like maim, murder, intimidate... Well, as long as it's happening to someone else, I guess you'd be fine with that. Except when your own government turns against you....

Last time I checked more US people were in jail per capita then in any other country on earth. So either you aren't responsible enough, or you're just plain authoritative like the rest. We could just compromise on Canada running the show...

Authoritative regimes that harass people in their own countries, or a regime that invades other countries without cause. Hmmm I'll go with the former one thanks. Besides between India, Japan, China, there's enough backbone to keep things going indefinitely without any US corporate involvement.

Yeah, let's give *China* control of the Internet. I'm sure that will work out fine.

Last time I checked more US people were in jail per capita then in any other country on earth. So either you aren't responsible enough, or you're just plain authoritative like the rest. We could just compromise on Canada running the show...

What does this have to do anything he said? I can't tell if you are a troll,or just that stupid.

I'm assuming that what this would boil down to is making it an _acceptable norm_ for countries to block outbound DNS queries at the border so you are forced to use a state-controlled DNS server, allowing them to selectively disappear domains, or point them to something state-controlled instead of what you are expecting (although this exactly what DNSSEC is supposed to prevent). As I see it this is about _legitimizing_ such behaviours, it isn't about actually doing it or not doing it. It will give them something to point at when other countries attempt to bring pressure to bear over their human rights record - "but the ITU regs say it is OK to do this!".

On the technical side, getting around this is just like anything else, tunnel the traffic through a foreign endpoint.

No wonder they so desperately want this. They look at the 'Arab spring' and are shitting their pants that once the oil money runs out they're gonna all descend into civil war. I do not say this to be racist, but with past empirical evidence indicating this to be the trend into the future, it's hard to be optimistic.

Classic case at the moment? Egypt gaining yet another dictator in Morsi. The king is dead, long live the king.

Last time I checked more US people were in jail per capita then in any other country on earth. So either you aren't responsible enough, or you're just plain authoritative like the rest. We could just compromise on Canada running the show...

What does this have to do anything he said? I can't tell if you are a troll,or just that stupid.

Yes I'm trolling because I'm the one that's xenophobic! Sorry the fact I can make a telephone call today to china works on the same principal these folks are proposing. Bonus Chinese people with a few dollars can call me too! It's already worked for decades and it'll continue to work.

Last time I checked more US people were in jail per capita then in any other country on earth. So either you aren't responsible enough, or you're just plain authoritative like the rest. We could just compromise on Canada running the show...

What does this have to do anything he said? I can't tell if you are a troll,or just that stupid.

Yes I'm trolling because I'm the one that's xenophobic! Sorry the fact I can make a telephone call today to china works on the same principal these folks are proposing. Bonus Chinese people with a few dollars can call me too! It's already worked for decades and it'll continue to work.

petriach's point here is that the relative number of jailed citizens does not strictly imply anything about how 'authoritative' a country is (and you probably mean 'authoritarian' anyway, but the same holds).

Not quite sure how the ITU's coordination/consensus seeking over the international telephony dialing codes and other telephone call exchange standards results in the fascist takeover of the phone system alleged. Perhaps someone who thinks it does could please explain ?

Also in what sense do national governments not have a degree of influence over management of their own 2 letter top level domain naming codes ? While the UK may choose to let Nominet get on with the job of managing .uk , if Nominet did an unacceptable job I can't imagine the UK government not wanting to have any involvement in helping move things forward.

And if standards are to be agreed internationally concerning data exchange protocols for policing cybercrime across borders, then which international standards organisation is better placed for UN members to agree these in connection with than the ITU ? It's possible the USA may choose not to implement particular ITU introduced standards, but that isn't going to stop other countries moving forward if and when it suits us to do so.

Governments protecting from attacks and having control over their networks? What allot of crap.... The Internet is build and mainly maintained by private companies and individuals. Not governments, so they have absolutely no right to claim for themselves something they did not waste 1 minute of their time to maintain and create. Except some very specific cases, they have invested 0 cents on the Internet and now they want to control the networks of IT communications which are private assets?

This countries should be disconnected from the Internet. Problem solved. Private companies and every other country should ban them similar to an economic embargo, it could be called a network embargo

If they want to have their own private network, let them have it, but in order to be connected to the rest of the planet, "open" rules should be followed. Its not their network, its "our" network, of everyone in the planet, the internet is global. If they claim they have some control over it because its in their territory, nobody stops them from disconnecting it from the rest of the world.

Such an open systems should be maintained. For example, if one regimen implements "their own rules" of control to their networks, and his neighbor does not, they should disconnect them or not allow them to pass data trough the networks of the neighbor. The ones that want to implement this would lose big time with this, because you can count them with 1 hand, and the rest of the world would basically disconnect them, even if their neighbor country does the same, eventually they would need or want to connect to an external country which should not tolerate this abuses.

Lets seem them how they want to control their networks but at the same time still be connected to the rest of the open networks, which is what made the Internet in the first place. If every company and government would propose this type of rules, the Internet would had never existed. Its because its open that it works. Not because everyone implements their own rules as they like, you can, but it will not and should not work with the rest of the Internet.

Big companies have the moral ground to start with such an system. If for example country "XXX" decides to implement this rules which go against the open network, them Google should traffic from this country. Lets see how they like to be cut off. If every company and network company does this, they would end up with their own private LAN which they can control as much as they like. If they want their citizens to use the open network, like Google, Facebook, etc, then they should follow rules. Open rules. Not what they like. What everyone else likes. Telecoms would never exists if they can´t connect to their next Telecom company, point made. If they want to "interconnect" rules should be followed, simple as the web protocol, or TCP/IP. Imagine open standards would not exists, the web as we know it would not exist. This is why its bad when private companies want to implement their own private standard and protocol, and this are networks, which are the same. Laws to control or regulate data flow from one side to the other should be fought as hard as possible, or its the start of the beginning of the end of the Internet as we know it today.

Our children would remember when the Internet was a place where everyone could visit everything they like, or everyone could publish their ideas in a blog, or open a website. If this regulations start they will slowly make the Internet similar to pay per view on TV. Where you pay to access some websites, and where they control which information you can can´t see.

Don´t let this people fool you. Its not to protect their network from attacks and similar. Is to have a ground point for data control flow. They know information is power, and they want to control what you can and can´t see read or write. And at the same time turn it into a cash machine milking companies like Google, Netflix, Facebook, etc to turn over their profits to them.

I'm assuming that what this would boil down to is making it an _acceptable norm_ for countries to block outbound DNS queries at the border so you are forced to use a state-controlled DNS server, allowing them to selectively disappear domains, or point them to something state-controlled instead of what you are expecting (although this exactly what DNSSEC is supposed to prevent). As I see it this is about _legitimizing_ such behaviours, it isn't about actually doing it or not doing it. It will give them something to point at when other countries attempt to bring pressure to bear over their human rights record - "but the ITU regs say it is OK to do this!".

On the technical side, getting around this is just like anything else, tunnel the traffic through a foreign endpoint.

DNSSEC is primarily to do with cryptography for authentication not privacy. But it'll provide a platform for a reasonably good (compared to the current alternatives) and much more widespread PKI for privacy purposes as well once enough people use it. No that there's anything to stop ISPs or governments telling ISPs to block unencrypted DNS at borders already, and I expect the China great firewall already to be doing things this way, as is done by UK schools to block porn sites by using a different DNS resolver. Also nothing to prevent use of private VPNs to encrypt DNS and DNSSEC using foreign endpoints, making DNS controls very easy to circumvent. Few ISPs block users running their own resolvers anyway and while DNSSEC won't prevent DOSs this will make it much harder to falsify DNS enquiry results.

Not quite sure how the ITU's coordination/consensus seeking over the international telephony dialing codes and other telephone call exchange standards results in the fascist takeover of the phone system alleged. Perhaps someone who thinks it does could please explain ?

Also in what sense do national governments not have a degree of influence over management of their own 2 letter top level domain naming codes ? While the UK may choose to let Nominet get on with the job of managing .uk , if Nominet did an unacceptable job I can't imagine the UK government not wanting to have any involvement in helping move things forward.

And if standards are to be agreed internationally concerning data exchange protocols for policing cybercrime across borders, then which international standards organisation is better placed for UN members to agree these in connection with than the ITU ? It's possible the USA may choose not to implement particular ITU introduced standards, but that isn't going to stop other countries moving forward if and when it suits us to do so.

You are so wrong in so many levels here. 90% or more of websites and data is in US datacenters. So the rest of the world will really care if the US implements or not their ITU rules. Without the US half of the Internet is basically gone, and lets see how they would like it in the UK an Internet without Google, Facebook just to name an extremist example. Hey, even Arstechnica where we are commenting is in the US.

So the US has a big opinion on this, a huge voice actually. And if it was not thanks to the US, Internet would not exist today. Let us the rest of the world don´t forget this. We never even said "thank you" for the Internet. The US is the major founder in this global corporation. They pretty much created the Internet and so far made sure its stay free and open. The huge success of US online companies shows this. Where are the Internet success companies in Europe? Their governments surely made a great job encouraging new companies killing them with taxes to their heads and regulations.

What makes you think this same governments can do a better job with the Internet? So far they have failed in everything Internet related. Why break something that is working already? And it works just fine, otherwise we would not be even commenting here and expression our opinion.

As I said in the other article about these countries wanting to have more control over the internet, isn't it cute that we would entertain such an idea? Not going to happen, nor should we care what they think. Like I said before, if they want it, all the more reason to go in the opposite direction.

EDIT: and btw, this isn't a "Merika! Hell Ya!" comment, this is someone who sees the reality. Who in their right minds would even THINK to have places like Saudi Arabia and China and Russia have a say in these things? It's so OBVIOUS why we shouldn't give a damn what these countries with their dictatorships and authoritative governments any kind of control over something as important as the internet. The Internet is the best thing that has ever happened to the human race, regardless of what all of the "first world hipsters" think. Entirely too important to have it sullied in the slightest by the above mentioned countries.

Authoritative regimes that harass people in their own countries, or a regime that invades other countries without cause. Hmmm I'll go with the former one thanks. Besides between India, Japan, China, there's enough backbone to keep things going indefinitely without any US corporate involvement.

Yeah, let's give *China* control of the Internet. I'm sure that will work out fine.

Authoritative regimes that harass people in their own countries, or a regime that invades other countries without cause. Hmmm I'll go with the former one thanks. Besides between India, Japan, China, there's enough backbone to keep things going indefinitely without any US corporate involvement.

Yeah, let's give *China* control of the Internet. I'm sure that will work out fine.

Doesn't much matter. We know that, worse case, and assuming the internet hasn't been completely shut down, we can always get somewhere by a direct IP address. It just means a little less convenience. If they start playing with DNS, it can be bypassed. DNS is a convenience to the user, not an absolute requirement. Also, ANYONE can set up a DNS system, if necessary.

Meh, seems like the same old same old issue regarding gTLDs. Each nation, even USA, have a national TLD in the form of a 2 or 3 letter code. Within that domain, they can do what ever they please.

the trouble is that gTLDs (.com and the rest) are by legacy US. But the use of said gTLDs are haphazard, especially .com. Some companies and such will provide a very international site there, while others will provide a very US focused one. Never mind that the casual user do not know what kind of law they are operating under, especially if the service provider is one place, the user another, server a third (or more depending on load balancing and CDNs used) and neither may be within US borders.

Then we have dustups like .xxx and the more recent offering of gTLDs for sale. Never mind having US agencies lean on Verisign to shut down various sub-domains, even when the owner is outside of US law, and the operation is legal in his home nation. Or that Verisign was quietly given 5 more years of managing .com by US department of commerce...

Making sure a POTS switch, or now, something like an OC-192, can connect between different countries, and "handshake" correctly, is just fine and dandy. What is being sent over those wires/fibers is NO GOVERNMENTS business until actually inside their respective boarders.

Oddly, we don't want China to conduct a raid on Google headquarters, but it's somehow OK for our government to justify raiding a certain "dot com."

Nothing is going to happen. The panic sewn by Google using its front-page bully pulpit is completely misplaced. The US delegation and other Western delegations, and for that matter, quite a few third-world delegations, are not going to let Russia, China, and the OIC countries try to grab the Internet any more than they have let them do this in other settings at the UN.

Meanwhile, Google's panic attacks obscure the down side of its own grab at Internet control, either directly, or through proxies like the GNI or other lobbying groups. The Internet Governance Forum is no better. The Internet really has to remain free for everybody, and that means that not states, and not just NGOs with deep pockets and funders get to decide what will affect all of us.

There's something to be said for not over-internationalizing the UN in these various ways, any more than it is already, so that the states with more liberal democratic laws on speech and free enterprise can prevail over the Internet with the rule of law on their own territories.

Oh and by the way.... As a Canadian I've already had this discussion with my ISP. And they said it's their network they can do whatever they want with the DNS. CRTC also said they have the right to do so.

The new proposal specifies that "member states have the right to manage all naming, numbering, addressing and identification resources used for international telecommunications/ICT services within their territories."

Since this states that any IP address or domain used within any particular member state is subject to the management of that member state, it translates as stating that anyone with a presence on the internet is subject to the laws of every country in the world. I predict that if that passage somehow stays in, the internet is going to fracture into either well known public and shadow parts, or by country where organizations, as a matter of routine, explicitly prevent entire nations from access.

Honestly I don't know why these countries bother with the ITU. They can right now run their own dns server and just redirect all dns within their jurisdiction to it! The spin could read something along the lines of "We're doing this to protect our citizens against child porn / terrorism".

And while these governments are not shining international citizens, is ITU control going to be any worse than ICANN? Why should the American's run the DNS system?

So are you just going to have a sook at Google catfitz40 or do something about it? Better Google than Saudis or Russians.Atleast Google wont chop my arms off or send me in a gulag for the rest if my life.

Coming back to topic, let these countries build their own internet with the condition that it will not have any link to the regular Net and neither will they be taken back until they pay a penalty in the trillions:-)

While we are at it, also forbid use of existing tech,let them build their own IP,routers,protocols. Usage of existing items would incur a yearly licensing fees. Why should they benefit from the tech development encouraged by the current Net.

Let them realise that sometimes a wish unfulfilled is better than a wish fulfilled.

Quite the choice we have here. US "imperialism" or authoritarian regimes that have everyone's best interest at heart.

This is why people need to get their heads checked when they complain about the US.

While the US is not perfect, the truth is that we have extremely strong protections for what actually matters, much stronger protections than the rest of the world. Speech is freer in the US than it is anywhere else on the planet, and, as such, it makes sense that everyone who is a good person would WANT those sorts of protections to be applied - and thus it makes sense that, ultimately, the US needs to stay in charge of these things.

Much as people whine about American imperialism, we aren't actually imperialists, and the US really does want the rest of the world to be a freer place. We may not always pursue that in the best possible manner, but on the other hand, look at Japan.

Quote:

Authoritative regimes that harass people in their own countries, or a regime that invades other countries without cause. Hmmm I'll go with the former one thanks. Besides between India, Japan, China, there's enough backbone to keep things going indefinitely without any US corporate involvement.

Er, what?

So you're saying its better to have people who hate freedom than people who like freedom in charge of things?

I'm sorry, but you're clearly insane.

The US is extremely powerful, but it is also extremely pro-freedom. There are very few countries as pro-individualism as the US is. And by "very few", I mean "none on this planet".

The US hasn't invaded other countries without cause in quite some time. Whether or not you agree with their reasons for invading countries doesn't mean that they don't act with purpose. The US went into Iraq and Afganistan to "spread freedom" (and in the case of Afganistan, dismantle a government that was too nice to Al Qaeda, and basically making an example of them). Was that entirely wise? Probably not. But the goal was not nefarious, even if the execution was poor.

Blind hatred is a terrible thing.

Quote:

Last time I checked more US people were in jail per capita then in any other country on earth. So either you aren't responsible enough, or you're just plain authoritative like the rest. We could just compromise on Canada running the show...

While a lot of people cite this figure, it means very little. There are countries which have killed a much higher percentage of their populace than the US has put in jail, and I think we can all agree that mass killings are significantly worse than mass jailings.

How many million people did Mao starve to death? How many million did Stalin kill? How many have died in North Korea, or Africa? What about Iran?

The US enforces its laws and puts people in prison for longer periods of time. That is why it has such a high imprisonment rate. That doesn't make the US an authoritarian regieme; indeed, we do a better job of protecting the rights of Americans than most countries do. The fact that they believe in stern punishment as opposed to rehabilitation doesn't make them authoritarian. While the US homicide rate is nothing to be proud of, the rate of commissions of other crimes are much lower than in numerous other countries - many countries have significantly higher rates of assault than the US, for instance, and many countries barely enforce their laws at all or do so only highly selectively, effectively sanctioning some crimes for some groups or against some groups.

So don't pretend to be so high and mighty.

I'm tired of people who have no understanding of what they're talking about complaining about the US. It sure isn't perfect, but claiming that it is somehow a murderously authortarian regieme is to not understand anything about the world. People in the US enjoy a lot of freedom, and it is easier to speak your mind here than anywhere else in the world.

Quote:

No wonder they so desperately want this. They look at the 'Arab spring' and are shitting their pants that once the oil money runs out they're gonna all descend into civil war. I do not say this to be racist, but with past empirical evidence indicating this to be the trend into the future, it's hard to be optimistic.

Of course they are, because that's the only reason their heads aren't all on sticks already. Well, with the exception of China. Though there is another sort of foreign money flowing into that country, and it will be VERY interesting to see what happens if manufacturing starts moving back into the first world due to high transportation costs and automation.

Quote:

Classic case at the moment? Egypt gaining yet another dictator in Morsi. The king is dead, long live the king.

We'll see how long he lasts.

Quote:

Oddly, we don't want China to conduct a raid on Google headquarters, but it's somehow OK for our government to justify raiding a certain "dot com."

This isn't odd at all. Its like saying "oddly, we don't want Al Qaeda prosecuting people for not following Islamic Law, but we're okay with putting John Wayne Gacy in jail."

Authoritative regimes that harass people in their own countries, or a regime that invades other countries without cause. Hmmm I'll go with the former one thanks. Besides between India, Japan, China, there's enough backbone to keep things going indefinitely without any US corporate involvement.

Harass? Harass?! More like maim, murder, intimidate... Well, as long as it's happening to someone else, I guess you'd be fine with that. Except when your own government turns against you....

Last time I checked more US people were in jail per capita then in any other country on earth. So either you aren't responsible enough, or you're just plain authoritative like the rest. We could just compromise on Canada running the show...

Well, if the US chose to maim and/or execute more law breakers instead of incarcerating them then it would significantly reduce the number of incarcerated people.

The West may accept Canada and/or Sweden to run the internet but most certainly not China, Russia, Saudis, etc.

Much as people whine about American imperialism, we aren't actually imperialists, and the US really does want the rest of the world to be a freer place.

Nope. The CIA and other US state-sponsored entities have been destabilizing and overthrowing democracies for the better part of a century now, particularly in the Middle East and South America.

Quote:

The US is extremely powerful, but it is also extremely pro-freedom.

Again, not really. If you're thinking of American _people_ instead of the American government, maybe, but probably still no. This is the country that locked up Japanese citizens (including George Takei?) after Pearl Harbor for no good reason, the country that has pointlessly outlawed marijuana, even though its citizens are making drug cartels rich by buying it, and the country that has the highest incarceration rate in the WORLD. By several definitions, the US is extremely anti-freedom.

Quote:

The US hasn't invaded other countries without cause in quite some time. Whether or not you agree with their reasons for invading countries doesn't mean that they don't act with purpose. The US went into Iraq and Afganistan to "spread freedom"

Definitely, definitely not. There are many reasons that the US went into Iraq and Afghanistan, but altruism is not one of them. If they were altruistic, why not invade a country with a greater need of intervention? The people of North Korea and Sudan probably could have used some help...

Quote:

Blind hatred is a terrible thing.

So is blind loyalty. Both are responsible wars and the countless deaths they cause.

Quote:

While a lot of people cite this figure, it means very little. There are countries which have killed a much higher percentage of their populace than the US has put in jail, and I think we can all agree that mass killings are significantly worse than mass jailings.

Who are you referring to? China? Because we aren't getting reports from China about blood running through the street... Yes, that incarceration rate is actually pretty significant.

Quote:

How many million people did Mao starve to death? How many million did Stalin kill? How many have died in North Korea, or Africa? What about Iran?

That doesn't get the US off the hook. Those countries already receive plenty of heat from humans rights activists. Mao and Stalin are dead.

Quote:

The US enforces its laws and puts people in prison for longer periods of time. That is why it has such a high imprisonment rate. That doesn't make the US an authoritarian regieme; indeed, we do a better job of protecting the rights of Americans than most countries do. The fact that they believe in stern punishment as opposed to rehabilitation doesn't make them authoritarian.

You are terribly full of it. The US's longer sentences and stricter punishments accomplish NOTHING. Study after study has shown that longer sentences are ineffective at reducing crime. The US's penal system is broken according to every possible metric you could apply.

Quote:

I'm tired of people who have no understanding of what they're talking about complaining about the US. It sure isn't perfect, but claiming that it is somehow a murderously authortarian regieme is to not understand anything about the world.

You really, really need to read up on the US government and the CIA in particular before you go around accusing _other_ people of being ignorant. The theme that pops up again and again is that America's current problems (drug war in Mexico/illegal immigration, tensions with Iran) are very, very often America's fault (ubiquitous drug use in the US, overthrowing democracy in sovereign nations).